5 ms·
There doesn't have to be a plausible mechanism for harm to decide that we avoid something. Things we consumed for millions of years can be considered mostly saf
by throw_pm23 3y ago
There doesn't have to be a plausible mechanism for harm to decide that we avoid something. Things we consumed for millions of years can be considered mostly safe. New things should be seen as unsafe until proven otherwise.
- tptacek 3y agoThat logic doesn't work; foods that we've consumed for millions of years also cause cancer.
- throw_pm23 3y agoThe logic mostly works, stuff that is very harmful, with early onset of disease has been filtered out that way. Stuff where harm is (statistically) less likely or appears very late can get past the filter. It could very well be that aspartame is in this latter group or may even be entirely harmless.. being extra cautious with new stuff is still rational.
- tptacek 3y agoNo, that's just not true. There are goods that have been consumed for thousands of years that eventually cause cancer, but don't do anything in the immediacy.
- throw_pm23 3y agoYes, that overlaps largely with what I said.
- _Algernon_ 3y agoAll else being equal, I'd rather eat a food that has been eaten for millenia, than a random newly synthesized chemical. The priors are orders of magnitude apart.
- jfengel 3y agoThe problem is that proving something safe is extremely difficult. Negative effects can take decades to show up. You can use models, and epidemiology, but true gold standard randomized controlled trials in humans are rarely possible. Instead we have to take out best guess.
- throw_pm23 3y agoYes, that's the point. Because it is extremely difficult to prove something is safe, and it takes a long time for the effects to show up, we should be extremely cautious, and stick to things which proved themselves through the passage of time.
- djmips 3y agoI can think of alcohol, seems like a terrible poison but it's also 'stood there test of time'.
- FartyMcFarter 3y agoDepends on what test you mean. Clearly alcohol hasn't stood the test of time enough, as there are lots of studies showing its bad effects.
- throw_pm23 3y agoAlcohol is not a terrible poison, it is a social lubricant and mild intoxicant and uninhibitant with negative side-effects if abused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat#The_%22whiskey_speech%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat#The_%22whiskey_s...
- callalex 3y agoHumans have consumed tobacco for a really long time. It is still not safe. Humans have consumed alcohol for a really long time, it is still not safe. Just because something is traditional does not make it safe or healthy in any way.
- throw_pm23 3y agoThe filter is not perfect but it does eliminate the worst offenders. For example, if something has been consumed for a really long time, then by definition it doesn't cause the sudden death of the consumer.
- tptacek 3y agoNobody is claiming anything commonly consumed causes "sudden death".
- kortilla 3y agoThis is the naturalistic fallacy and there are many things that people have consumed for long periods of time that are not safe (e.g. tobacco).
- throw_pm23 3y agoIt is not black or white. The worst offenders were filtered out. Tobacco is indeed harmful and we are in the process of removing it as we noticed its harm (on a scale of decades and centuries). For stuff where the effect is (statistically) small, the filter is not perfect. But it is not a fallacy any more than evolution or natural selection are.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoAlcohol would like a word. Probably older than civilization, and we still have people getting cirrhosis.